Latest One Dulwich update

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

I have nothing to do with tje group beyond one of those two thousand dots on their website as a "member" is me!

So you are a ‘member’ 😳whatever that means, but also not. It’s not very clear…. But also totally transparent.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Now, are you going to answer my questions

Miaow 💅😂

Maybe I will, maybe I won’t 😂

What is interesting about your questions is that they suggest, as usual, that you see everything as a really basic binary opposition (cars vs bike, anti LTN vs pro-council etc). It’s not very nuanced Rocks. I don’t have great love for Southwark council as I suspect you assume. That said, neither do I have a lot of time for the apocalyptic hyperbole of those still upset over a fairly minor change to a road junction in the village, made several years ago, and which actually creates a nice public space for pedestrians and a bit more safety for kids travelling to school by bike.

Ah, what the hell, let’s play…as you asked so nicely:

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

1) Which consultation are you referring to?

The one that took place between May and July 2021

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times?

I don’t know much about this. It seems it was reopened though? Apparently they have the agreement of the emergency services this time, (which perhaps does suggests they didn’t consult with them properly the first time round). Of course someone (the mysterious Mr One?) believes the emergency services are being intimidated somehow (possibly by commies) so maybe Southwark still haven’t learnt their lesson?

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns:

No, I don’t. Although I hear the Mysterious Mr One would like it redesigned to make things clearer. 😂

As for your ‘question 3 sub-points’ I don’t actually agree with their premise (a bit of the old ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ framing going on there… slippery 😂)

Anyway good luck with the referendum. 

 

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you are a ‘member’ 😳whatever that means, but also not. It’s not very clear…. But also totally transparent.

We are actually referred to as "Supporters"...2,100 of us across Dulwich...read and weep! 😉

 

https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The one that took place between May and July 2021

Got it, the one where 64% of respondents in the consultation area said they wanted the measures "returned to their original state". Is that the one you claim had a yes/no response question?

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don’t know much about this. It seems it was reopened though? Apparently they have the agreement of the emergency services this time,

Well I suggest you read up on it as it is an important part of the story of utter mismangement by the councils and this is why so many of us can't work out who is pulling the council's strings on this one because surely you can agree that if the emergency services were knocking on your door for months and months telling you the blocks in the roads were delayihg response times and putting lives at risk you'd do something about it? Pretty negligent not to do so don't you think - if I was a councillor it would not sit well with me?

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

(the mysterious Mr One?)

Careful it could be a Mrs, Miss or Mx One.....

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As for your ‘question 3 sub-points’ I don’t actually agree with their premise (a bit of the old ‘how often do you beat your wife’ framing going on there… slippery 😂)

Of course you don't that's because you have strong opinions but hate being asked for detail to.back-up those opinions (especially when it doesn't serve their narrative) and exposes the flaws in your arguments! 😉 

As so many of the pro-LTN lobby find to their cost the devil is always in the detail.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

Got it, the one where 64% of respondents in the consultation area said they wanted the measures "returned to their original state"

57% of those who actually lived in the consultation area I believe. Around 3,000. Presumably 2,000 of whom are the ‘supporters of One Dulwich (but not members of One Dulwich? So how does one ‘join’?)

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

Well I suggest you read up on it as it is an important part of the story of utter mismangement by the councils and this is why so many of us can't work out who is pulling the council's strings on this one because surely you can agree that if the emergency services were knocking on your door for months and months…

It seems fairly clear that Southwark could have done more first time round as they did open the junction back up to emergency services. I’m not sure why this suggests someone shawdowy is ‘pulling their strings’ though as you suggest.

You say read up on it - why not share the evidence that emergency services were knocking on the council’s door for months and months?

You’ve just posted a claim the the LFB haven’t been consulted this time round, yet their spokesman says 

“Regarding the FOI, the local authority did consult the Brigade. However, they didn’t initially contact the specific Southwark team, who responded on the FOI saying they hadn’t been contacted.”

The irony of course is that by closing the junction to all through traffic bar the emergency services (even in the new proposals they will have access via court lane), it likely helps response times.

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

you have strong opinions but hate being asked for detail to.back-up those opinions (especially when it doesn't serve their narrative) and exposes the flaws in your arguments!

I have answered all your questions (where they are actual questions). You ducked and deflected my two for several pages, before awkwardly distancing yourself from the claims made in the missive you shared 😳

A question that says “do you agree with a design that does nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders” is what’s called a loaded question. Whether one say yes or no it accepts the premise. It’s the classic ‘have you stopped beating your wife” construction, and it’s not very subtle. 🙄

 

 

Edited April 29 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

Agree Earl. Anyone who remembers how bad the congestion on Calton Ave and Court Lane used to be knows that this isn’t a route that emergency services would have been able to get anywhere quickly. 

[Kathleen Olander]

46 minutes ago, march46 said:

Agree Earl. Anyone who remembers how bad the congestion on Calton Ave and Court Lane used to be knows that this isn’t a route that emergency services would have been able to get anywhere quickly. 

I assume this is a joke?

[alice]

This whole conversation is a joke. it provides entertainment for the poster.  nothing else

[march46]

Funny how some people don’t remember how awful it used to be

 

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Got it, the one where 64% of respondents in the consultation area said they wanted the measures "returned to their original state"

57% of those who actually lived in the consultation area I believe. Around 3,000. Presumably 2,000 of whom are the ‘supporters of One Dulwich (but not members of One Dulwich? So how does one ‘join’?)

Not clear what point you are trying to make here Earl?

A majority of those consulted wanted measures returned to their original state. Majority is the salient point.

Again, if consultations are pretty irrelevent, as you seem to suggest, then why do oragnisations like Southwark Cyclists repeatedly prompt their members, whether local to the consultation area or not, to respond to consultations on CPZ or LTNs. What a waste of everyone's time if of no import in terms of local policy-making.

[march46]

Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast. 

 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You say read up on it - why not share the evidence that emergency services were knocking on the council’s door for months and months?

Ok here goes.....

 

Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.

 

Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives:

1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.

 

The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....

 

2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...

 

https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/

 

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

57% of those who actually lived in the consultation area I believe. Around 3,000. Presumably 2,000 of whom are the ‘supporters of One Dulwich (but not members of One Dulwich? So how does one ‘join’?)

No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.

 

3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state

823 (17%) wanted it retained as was

422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed

564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features

 

So back then the 11% got their wish!

 

In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?

[Penguin68]

The original council proposals for the area around the Dulwich cross roads were made well before Covid - and were rejected then by locals. The council used the Covid legislation to push through the LTNs when opposition was not allowed. LTNs, as experiments were some good (reduced traffic in areas which did not push traffic elsewhere and which did meet the needs of residents - typically in places very well served by public transport and where the topology (absence e.g. of hills) allowed wide use of cycling and walking - not as it happens a good description of the Dulwich (inc ED, WD and ND) areas.)  Dulwich never met Southwark's own description of ideal LTN areas, but did happen to match Southwark Councillor ambitions dating way back.

One Dulwich has been clear, I believe that it is anti this LTN but not, necessarily all LTNs per se. But as it is One Dulwich is has not stated views about LTNs in general.

In the main those prepared to make a view known, in Dulwich, have not supported the Council's LTN ambitions locally - whilst some, living in the LTN area, have gained personal benefit. But it would appear not even a majority of those living in the LTN area have supported the LTN. And certainly not those living immediately outside the area where traffic has worsened. As a resident of Underhill, a remaining access route to the South Circular, I can confirm that I am suffering increased traffic and blockages in rush hours whilst living some way away from the LTN.

All this - 'I want to name the guilty parties' -' is One Dulwich a secret fascists cabal whose only interest is being anti-Labour?' conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant - whoever they are they seem to represent feelings of a majority of actual residents either in the LTNs, or in parts of Dulwich impacted by the LTNs. And I'm beginning to find these 'Answer me this...' tirades frankly irritating.

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

All this - 'I want to name the guilty parties' -' is One Dulwich a secret fascists cabal whose only interest is being anti-Labour?' conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant - whoever they are they seem to represent feelings of a majority of actual residents either in the LTNs, or in parts of Dulwich impacted by the LTNs. And I'm beginning to find these 'Answer me this...' tirades frankly irritating.

Spot on...and they rant against "anonymous" groups like One Dulwich and then post missives from "anonymous" lobby groups like Clean Air Dulwich without any sense of hypocrisy or irony...

[alice]

6 hours ago, march46 said:

Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast. 

 

https://x.com/ChitchClaire/status/1784852977515114873

[first mate]

Indeed Alice, but the traffic illustrated and those affected by it really don't count; they are examples of necessary collateral damage in the council's fight for the 'greater good'. 

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 3 May Parliament debates LTNs – please fill in the questionnaire by 6 May Parliament will debate two petitions – “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” and “Exempt Blue Badge drivers from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” – at 4.30 pm on Monday 20 May in the Grand Committee Room above Westminster Hall. Please fill in this short questionnaire about your experience of the Dulwich LTNs, as your comments will help to inform the debate. The deadline for this is very soon – 10am on Monday 6 May. We have written to our MP Helen Hayes, pointing out that her constituents represent the second highest number of those who requested both petitions, and asking her to take part in the debate in order to represent the two-thirds majority of people living and working in Dulwich who asked for the Dulwich LTNs to be reconsidered. Because these petitions are directed at Parliament, not Southwark Council, we hope that Helen Hayes will speak up for her constituents on this occasion. You might want to encourage her to take part by emailing her at [email protected]. We have also reminded her that a group of Blue Badge holders have petitioned the Leader of Southwark Council to be allowed through the Dulwich Village junction because of the daily difficulties, distress and – in some cases – severe pain suffered by disabled and other vulnerable car-dependent constituents who are now forced to take long and circuitous detours in stop-start traffic along boundary roads. You can watch the debate – and, we hope, our MP representing our interests – on Parliament tv, or you can attend in person. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team  SUPPORT ONE DULWICH

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 19 May Survey shows overwhelming opposition to LTNs Ahead of the LTNs debate in parliament on Monday 20 May at 4.30 pm – triggered by petitions asking for a review of LTNs, and for Blue Badge holders to be exempt from LTNs – the Petitions Committee has published the results of an online survey.  There were 7,349 responses. 78% of all respondents, and 78% of people with physical and mental health issues, say that LTNs have had a ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ impact on them. 91% of businesses said the same. 74% consider LTNs have had a negative impact on the environment. You can read the full report here. No reply from MP Helen Hayes We have had no response from MP Helen Hayes to our email of 2 May, asking if she will take part in the debate on Monday to represent the two-thirds majority of people living and working in Dulwich who asked for the LTNs to be reconsidered in Southwark Council’s 2021 consultation.  We also asked if she would speak up for the many Blue Badge holders who have petitioned the Council for access through the Dulwich Village junction. We hope her lack of response does not mean she is ignoring her constituents on this issue. You can see if she attends the debate on Monday by watching it live here. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 15 June Police and Fire Brigade not consulted on closure of Calton Avenue After the London Ambulance Service (LAS) were pressured in February into accepting the installation of a bollard to shut off access to Calton Avenue (this wasn’t part of the original consultation), it transpires that neither the London Fire Brigade (LFB) nor the Met Police Service (MPS) were consulted. A recent FOI response from the Police said there was no correspondence with Southwark on this at the time the FOI was received in March. An earlier FOI from the LFB said they “had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this”. Meanwhile another FOI has revealed that the number of emergency vehicles that entered or exited Calton Avenue through the Dulwich Village junction in 2023 was 179 – an average of 15 times a month. This contrasts with the claim by Cllr. Richard Leeming on X (formerly Twitter) that the Emergency Services “have only exited onto Calton Avenue a handful of times in the last few years”. Now another FOI has revealed that Fire Emergency Vehicles, under the new designs, will not be able to get through the Dulwich Village junction to Court Lane or Calton Avenue without mounting the pavement in two places. This makes a mockery of the Council’s claim that pedestrians are their number one priority at the junction and underlines that the designs are not fit for purpose.  Reply from Helen Hayes MP On 29 May Helen Hayes finally replied to One Dulwich’s email of 2 May asking her to speak up for Blue Badge holders, and her constituents wanting an independent inquiry into LTNs, at the Parliamentary debate on 20 May. She explained that she was busy in the House of Commons so couldn’t attend but that she believes decisions about LTNs are matters for local authorities and that she has always worked to represent accurately and fairly the diverse views of all of her constituents. So how does an MP decide when to help vulnerable constituents who ask for their MP’s help and when not to? This might be a question to ask candidates at the election hustings being organised by the Herne Hill Forum on 26 June. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

[march46]

I wouldn’t believe anything this group says.
 

The London Fire Brigade confirmed to Southwark News in April that they’d been consulted with. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/dulwich-village-ltn-row-erupts-as-emergency-vehicle-access-restricted/

Similarly regarding the police, sending an FOI request to a specific branch of the Met police who reply saying they’ve not been consulted isn’t the same as ‘the Met weren’t consulted’. 

Also, what evidence do they have to back up their claim that the council ‘pressured’ the ambulance service into accepting a bollard? The statement in Southwark News says the ambulance service recognised the need to balance their concerns with the protection of other vulnerable road users.

It seems that One Dulwich are getting increasingly desperate with their conspiracy theories. If only their time and energies were channeled into something positive for the community.

 

[Rockets]

You may not believe anything OneDulwich says but you would believe Cllr Leeming and his "handful of times in the past few years"? 15 times a month suggests he may have been less than honest about how often the emergency services had been using the junction wouldnt you agree..but, let's be honest, he has previous for this type of misleading spin...thankfully FOIs are great for exposing council, ahem, "oversights" such as these.

Perhaps you should try and piece the jigsaw together again. It looks to me as if One Dulwich are saying some emergency services had not been consulted in March. The Southwark News article from April only confirms LFB  had been consulted but no timing for this is given and the LFB statement about contacting the wrong Southwark team is a bit unclear.

What you also need to understand is the emergency services hate road blocks - always have done, always will do. Why? Because they slow response times and endanger lives as a result and they are judged on how quickly they get to an emergency call.. Our local councillors, <Dulwich Society name> and the pro-LTN lobby love roadblocks so the two are always going to be at odds with each other. On one side emergency services want no road blocks so they can get to emergency calls quickly, on the other groups who want to close as many roads as possible to all vehicular traffic.

And when LAS says they have "raised concerns" you can probably assume those concerns were ignored or rebuked by the council. It's LAS' way of saying "told you so".

Given the council has a long history of ignoring the advice of the emergency services and putting their ideology ahead of resident safety I think it is clear where the issue lies here. Remember the emergency services were telling Southwark for months and months that the first DV closure was causing delays but Southwark repeatedly, and deliberately, ignored them.

We also have to ask, again, why is the council and the pro-LTN lobby so desperate to block vehicular access at parts of that junction - so much tax payers money has been wasted on that junctions already? To whose agenda are they working as it is clear that the biggest danger at that junction is now posed by speeding cyclists yet the council seem utterly disinterested in addressing that issue? One wonders why that might be?

[first mate]

On 15/06/2024 at 23:33, Rockets said:

We also have to ask, again, why is the council and the pro-LTN lobby so desperate to block vehicular access at parts of that junction - so much tax payers money has been wasted on that junctions already? To whose agenda are they working as it is clear that the biggest danger at that junction is now posed by speeding cyclists yet the council seem utterly disinterested in addressing that issue? One wonders why that might be?

Recent revelations about the Dulwich Society sub committee Chair's background also suggest possible manipulation of stakeholder input into dialogue and consultation with the council on changes to that junction. 

Edited June 17 by first mate

[ab29]

One Dulwich

CampaignUpdate | 30 June There appears to be a concerted attempt to discredit One Dulwich. Apparently, we’re behind all local protests, busily spreading lies and misinformation, and even (for reasons that are bewilderingly unclear) plotting to bring down the Dulwich Society. So we thought we should set the record straight.  We are a single issue campaign, set up four years ago to protest against the road closures imposed by Southwark Council in the Dulwich area. We believe that the current road closures divide the community into winners and losers. They discriminate against those who are frail or elderly, or who have disabilities (even Blue Badge holders are denied access through the 24/7closures). They damagelocal businesses. They delay buses and emergency services. They displace traffic on to residential roads, many with schools, where thousands of children walk and cycle every day.  While those who support One Dulwich may feel strongly about any number of local issues, we have never asked you – and will never ask you – to help us protest against anything other than the Dulwich road closures.  As for the charge that we are spreading false information,particularly in relation to our recent campaign update about the closure of Calton Avenue (who was consulted, how many Emergency Vehicles use the junction, and whether the new £1.5m designs are fit for purpose), we are baffled. We always check our facts carefully. In this case, we refer you to our latest News piece, where wereproduce at some length (with names redacted, to protect the identity of those who initiated the FOIs), the Freedom of Information requests and replies on which we based our reporting.  We wonder whether those who work so hard to smear us do sobecause we touch a nerve. They know that the road closures are deeply divisive and hurt those who are most vulnerable. They know the policy is flawed.  But they’ve dug themselves in so deep, all they can do is keep on digging. Thank you for your support. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

[Rockets]

The link on the FOI trail and whether emergency services were consulted is very interesting...are the council being economical with the truth..again...or are these a series of unfortunate oversights.....again?

 

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/blocking-calton-avenue-to-emergency-vehicles-who-knew-what-and-when?ss_source=sscampaigns&ss_campaign_id=6681ad2971bd226a85c91e53&ss_email_id=6681bf7971bd226a85ca451a&ss_campaign_name=Campaign+Update+|+30+June&ss_campaign_sent_date=2024-06-30T20%3A27%3A02Z

 

Blocking Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles: who knew what and when

30 Jun

One Dulwich has been accused of spreading lies about Southwark’s decision to block Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles – who was consulted, how many ES vehicles access the junction, and whether the £1.5m designs are fit for purpose. We stand by our reporting, and reproduce the evidence in the timeline below.

1. When does Southwark decide to block Calton Avenue?

17 January 2024: Southwark Council closes the public consultation on proposed designs for the Dulwich Village junction. At this point, there has been no mention of a plan to close Calton Avenue Southbound to Emergency Services (ES) Vehicles.

7 March 2024: Southwark Council announces it intends to approve the new £1.5m designs for the junction, including plans to introduce a bollard on Calton Avenue to prevent ES vehicles from accessing Calton Avenue “in view of the safety concerns caused by the level of non-compliance at this arm”.

There is no mention of this being a trial. There is no public consultation on this new feature.

The decision is formally taken on 12 March 2024.

2. Is the London Fire Brigade consulted?

28 March 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOIA 8524.1) from the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the London Fire Brigade and Southwark council asking LFB to participate in the consultation”) says that the LFB “can confirm we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this and hold no correspondence”.

A further FOI response (Ref: 8524.2) from the LFB on 14 May includes an email dated 9 March from the Borough Commander of the LFB to Southwark saying the LFB has been contacted by concerned residents about the closure of Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles and asking if the Council can confirm this is the case.

After chasing up this email on 20 March, the Borough Commander receives a reply from a Southwark Officer saying “Apologies, the project manager was supposed to get in touch”, and adding that this was an informal consultation and not the statutory consultation which has yet to start.

An FOI response (Ref: 24996313) from Southwark Council on 3 May – broken down into four separate parts, and providing copies of correspondence and meetings between the Council and the Emergency Services – sheds a little more light on this confused picture.

It appears that Southwark had invited all three emergency services to a Teams meeting (see Part 4) on 1 February 2024 – that is, after the public consultation had ended – but that the LFB didn’t attend (see Part 1).

Afterwards, on 5 February, a Southwark Officer emails all three emergency services (see Part 3) to say that Calton Avenue Southbound will be closed to ES vehicles on a trial basis.

After claims are made on X (formerly Twitter) that the LFB had not been consulted about blocking Calton Avenue, Southwark Council asks the LFB to correct their FOI response (see the long thread in Part 2).

On 5 April, Cllr Richard Leeming comments on X (formerly Twitter) that he has been “assured by officers that the LFB were consulted, their response to the FOI was inaccurate & will be corrected”.

On 9 April, a Southwark Officer advises local councillors that the LFB has indicated it does not intend to comment further.

As of today’s date, the London Fire Brigade’s FOI response of 28 March has not been corrected.

3. Is the London Ambulance Service consulted?

9 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOI 6164) from the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to an FOI submitted on 8 March reveals that the LAS attended the Teams meeting with Southwark Council on 1 February (see above), where they raise concerns about the re-introduction of physical closures on Calton Avenue “due to the potential that they could cause delays to emergency vehicles”.

The LAS goes on to say that following discussions at the meeting, “it was decided that…the re-introduction of the physical closures would be accepted”. However, the LAS adds that the impact of the closure will be closely monitored and “where necessary the requirement for the road closure would need to be reviewed and if needed would be removed”.

It is clear from the concerns expressed and the words used that – having fought so hard for the junction to be reopened to ES vehicles in 2021 – the LAS have reservations about the plan and have agreed to it on a trial basis only.

4. How many Emergency Vehicles use the Dulwich Village junction?

17 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 24050749) from Southwark Council to an FOI submitted on 12 April contains a spreadsheet showing how many Emergency Vehicles have used the junction in 2022, 2023 and the first three months of 2024.

In 2023, 179 ES vehicles used the junction – an average of 15 a month, and a 39% increase on the number using the junction in 2022. In January 2024, a total of 24 ES vehicles used the junction – the highest number for one month recorded so far.

The spreadsheet does not make clear which route ES vehicles most commonly take when exiting the junction but, either way, the numbers do not support Cllr Richard Leeming’s claim on X (formerly Twitter) on 14 March 2024 that “the ES have only exited onto Calton Avenue a handful of times in the last few years”.

5. Are the new designs for the junction fit for purpose?

22 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 25058345) from Southwark Council on 22 April gives details of a Swept Path Analysis for the new junction designs.

This reveals that ES vehicles will not be able to travel through the junction to and from Court Lane without overhanging or overrunning the footway (i.e. mounting the pavement), which is clearly a hazard for pedestrians. The accompanying set of designs (dated 17 April) highlights the problems.

We are waiting to hear Southwark’s response to what appears to be a design fault.

6. Are the Metropolitan Police consulted?

5 June 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 01/FOI/24/036507) from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the Met police and Southwark council asking the Met to participate in the consultation”) reveals that this information was not held by the MPS at the time the request was received on 8 March.

This confirms that the Police were not consulted before Southwark Council announced their intention on 7 March to install a bollard on Calton Avenue.

[Bicknell]

Whole thing sounds like a mess

[Rockets]

Posting the last One Dulwich update here because they discuss the Dept of Transport data that identifies Southwark's cycling and walking data every year since 2016 to 2023 and it is very interesting (which I have attached). It would be great if they could break this down to separate walking from cycling..

 

Campaign Update | 10 Sep

The Dulwich Village junction Work continues on the £1.5 million Dulwich Village junction re-design, despite the lack of community support (see the Phase 3 Consultation Report here). We continue to impress on council officers that their plans show unacceptably poor access for emergency vehicles, and inadequate and badly positioned parking for Blue Badge holders. Further details, and how to object, can be found under ‘Dulwich Streets for People (notice dated 5 Sept 2024)’. Southwark’s poor investment The Department for Transport’s published data (updated last month) shows that Southwark’s huge investment in active travel – including millions spent on LTNs – has resulted in no significant change in either walking or cycling. In fact, walking and cycling for travel (rather than leisure) went down in 2023 compared with pre-Covid years. Maybe they need to re-think their strategy? West Dulwich Action Group The West Dulwich Action Group are taking legal action to fight Lambeth Council over the recently imposed LTN. Read more on their Facebook page, or help them reach their £30,000 target via GoFundMe. Thank you for your support. Best wishes,

The One Dulwich Team

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 28/04/2024 at 22:31, Rockets said:

so many of us can't work out who is pulling the council's strings on this one

 

On 29/04/2024 at 11:05, Penguin68 said:

conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant

lol!